US v. Kevin Stevens, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00073-RBS-LRL-2,2:15-cv-00028-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999799966]. Mailed to: K. Stevens, Jr.. [15-7894]

Appeal: 15-7894

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7894

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN STEVENS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00073-RBS-LRL-2; 2:15-cv-00028-RBS)

Submitted:

April 19, 2016

Decided:

April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Stevens, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
V. Kathleen Dougherty,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7894

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Stevens, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

U.S.

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Stevens has not made the requisite showing.
on

the

sound

certificate
dispense

of

with

reasoning

of

appealability
oral

argument

the
and

district
dismiss

because

2

the

Accordingly, based
court,
the

we

deny

appeal.

facts

and

a
We

legal

Appeal: 15-7894

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 04/21/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3